> Both IPv6 and Wayland have increased complexity and surface area for pain (cost) without an obvious benefit for the end-user.

I'd argue the opposite: IPv6 has lowered complexity for the end user: SLAAC, endless addresses, no need for CIDR – these are all simplifications for the end user.

> Also: wrt IPv6 specifically, I don’t believe every device on a private network should be publicly addressable/routable. To me that’s a bug, not a feature,

Some would argue it's a feature. But let's say it's not useful. It's still surely not a bug. An address being publicly routeable doesn't mean you have to route traffic to it. Just don't, if you don't want to.

> and again does not serve the consumer, only the producer.

I'd argue that it simplifies some things for the consumer (see above), and also lets the consumer be a producer more easily. I'd argue that that's a good thing, more in the spirit of the internet. But even if the end user doesn't care, it's not a detriment.

I agree with the parent comment. I have sway on my laptop, i3 on my desktop, I don't notice any difference. Well except sharing and annoying small sway things that works on i3.

Just as I am oblivious to whether this is posted over ipv4 or 6.

That they all have to implement the protocol seems like 20 years of wayland might actually have hurt Linux more than it fixed - without it something else would have happened. Think of how many man hours have been wasted doing the same thing for KDE, gnome, sway, hyprland, etc.

(also I agree about the publicly available thing, it's a bug for me as well. Companies will harvest everything they can and you better believe defaults matter - aka publicly available, for the producer, but they will say your security, of course)